Comments on: Sunday Links: Republican Party Seppuku Editionhttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/01/22/sunday-links-republican-party-seppuku-edition/
It rankles me when somebody tries to tell somebody what to do.Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:59:44 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: Burgers Alldayhttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/01/22/sunday-links-republican-party-seppuku-edition/comment-page-2/#comment-2613415
Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:09:19 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=23626#comment-2613415Some excellent pro-active and assertive defenses by Mr. Balko. I remember once, a long time ago now, I acccused him of voting for Bush rather than Kerry. I was wrong. Mr, Balko was kind enuf to explain my mistake to me. Then I became an even bigger fanbois of his. Radley Balko is not perfect. That said, he is definitely not partisan and that part of that man is very important.
]]>By: EBLhttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/01/22/sunday-links-republican-party-seppuku-edition/comment-page-2/#comment-2611294
Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:44:47 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=23626#comment-2611294Separated at Birth: Mitt Romney and…?

Paul, although not my cup of tea, is the closest to libertariansm- in words only of course since he makes sure his district (seaside southeast texas) still gets earmarks for shrimp boats. [Why the shrimpers don’t simply build boats with their bare hands and set sail for a free market utopia, throwing overboard the dead-weight as they go is another subject.]

Does this mean libertarian leaning voters should compromise and go with Mitt?

]]>By: Radley Balkohttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/01/22/sunday-links-republican-party-seppuku-edition/comment-page-2/#comment-2610806
Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:35:38 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=23626#comment-2610806But outside of economics, one the matter of narcissism, my observations of Obama and his swooning supporters makes me wonder why Newt is singled out as particularly egregious, or his supporters as foolish to the point of “Seppuku”.

I think both are narcissistic. Does it really matter who is worse? I’m criticizing Gingrich at the moment because he’s surging toward the GOP nomination. Obama is already president. Do I really have to put up a post condemning Obama for something similar every time I criticize someone from the GOP? I don’t feel that I do.

The reference to Seppuku and assisted suicide has nothing to do with Gingrich’s narcissism. It’s the fact that the guy is completely unelectable. His net approval rating outside the Republican party is around -40. So yes, if the GOP nominates him, it will be suicide.

Radley Balko (#69): “The notion that I don?t criticize Obama because I harbor some secret affection for him or Democrats is nonsense. I?ve criticized Obama plenty for his shortcoming when it comes to civil liberties. If you think economics are more important, then write about economics. That?s not what I do here.“

I haven’t accused you of harboring “affection”. Your actions demonstrate that isn’t the case.

You don’t write much about economics. Fine. But above you asserted, “[Newt] is at least as awful as Obama on economic issues.” The Obama administration’s energy policy (which includes Keystone, Solyndra, etc.) and attempts to raise taxes on job producers, by themselves, make a strong case against such an assessment.

Economic liberties are part and parcel of individual rights. When the government takes away more of what you earn to fritter away on bureaucracy or magic beans and when government offices are infused with “stimulus” money which ends up paying for the tools of oppression, your freedoms are impacted. When they have such power over you, it’s even easier to violate your civil liberties, if not directly, by depriving you of the means to exercise them.

But outside of economics, one the matter of narcissism, my observations of Obama and his swooning supporters makes me wonder why Newt is singled out as particularly egregious, or his supporters as foolish to the point of “Seppuku”.

Except this is a civil liberties blog. That’s what I write about. It’s what I know about. I haven’t criticized Obama for the Keystone pipeline because I haven’t followed the story, because it’s well outside my area of expertise, and because, therefore, I don’t feel qualified to comment on it. The notion that I don’t criticize Obama because I harbor some secret affection for him or Democrats is nonsense. I’ve criticized Obama plenty for his shortcoming when it comes to civil liberties. If you think economics are more important, then write about economics. That’s not what I do here.

I just wanted to mention this because I don’t think there has been or will be any media coverage on this case. As far as I can tell, the opinion is not even up on the net. I only know about it because of access to a ommercial database.

“Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all… Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it?… Nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.” [President Washington, Farewell Address, 1796]

]]>By: Doodihttp://www.theagitator.com/2012/01/22/sunday-links-republican-party-seppuku-edition/comment-page-2/#comment-2610041
Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:16:02 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=23626#comment-2610041I disagree that the large scale economic policies have more of an impact on the average American than the wide reduction in our civil liberties that has been occurring.

Indeed, one of the reasons I like this blog so much is that it shows the results that the reductions in civil liberties have on individual Americans. I would guess that Mr. Christie (had he not been murdered by the police), or his wife, would disagree with you about the importance of civil liberties on the day to day life of an “average American.”

The fact that our civil liberties have been put through the grinder for the past 15-odd years means we are growing normalized to police being able to do whatever they want without consequences.

Furthermore, I’d argue that the erosion of civil liberties is having a big effect on our economy—see, e.g., the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the way a good 60% of the world sees the US government in a negative light and would prefer not to deal with us due to our terrible civil liberties record. And it is pretty widely accepted that a reduction in the rule of law (which is when the law is applied evenly, to all people, and which civil liberties were created partly to protect) results in harm to a country’s economic system. (e.g.: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/04/ES0419.pdf).

Indeed, as civil liberties abate and the rule of law weakens, corruption tends to grow. As corruption grows, property rights are weakened as those in power take property without due process.

In contrast, I think the Federal Government is much less powerful to regulate entities aside from itself than many people give it credit for. Indeed, the Federal Government looks pretty incompetent, from an economic regulation perspective, from where I’m sitting. I guess I don’t have a lot of faith that it can actually do a hell of a lot (for better or for worse) about the economy at all. Whereas I KNOW it can be a huge force in the erosion of our civil liberties.

You keep using that word. Your Randist rants about the “true” nature of money are more deeply socialist (grounded in labor/objective theory of value, the obligatory Producers Versus Parasites model of society, etc.)

Whoa, there, pal… You know, Ayn Rand wrote a book – apparently you’ve not read it – where she outlines all this “Randist” stuff. You seem to have read and be recalling another book. It’s title must be something like Atlas Continued to Carry the Parasites on His Back.